Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar vs The State of Maharashtra — 39/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHLA090004622026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

12-02-2026

Filing Number

237/2026

Filing Date

12-02-2026

Registration No

39/2026

Registration Date

12-02-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Udgir

Judge

2-2nd Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar

Adv. PATIL VISHAL DEELIPRAO

Respondent(s)

The State of Maharashtra

Hearing History

Judge: 2-2nd Jt.Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir

24-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

Reply/Say

13-03-2026

Arguments

07-03-2026

Reply/Say

24-02-2026

Reply/Say

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar v. The State of Maharashtra (CRI. M. A. No. 39/2026) The court rejected Biradar's application under Section 503 of B.N.S.S. seeking release of Rs. 90,000 seized during investigation of a theft case. The applicant claimed Rs. 50,000 was stolen property and Rs. 40,000 was proceeds from selling his gold ornaments, but the court found his claim insufficient due to lack of purchase receipts for the ornaments, failure to file affidavits, inconsistencies between provided receipt details and F.I.R. claims, receipt not in applicant's name, and failure to add the person from whose possession the amount was recovered as a party to the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ramesh Bhujangrao Biradar v. The State of Maharashtra (CRI. M. A. No. 39/2026) The court rejected Biradar's application under Section 503 of B.N.S.S. seeking release of Rs. 90,000 seized during investigation of a theft case. The applicant claimed Rs. 50,000 was stolen property and Rs. 40,000 was proceeds from selling his gold ornaments, but the court found his claim insufficient due to lack of purchase receipts for the ornaments, failure to file affidavits, inconsistencies between provided receipt details and F.I.R. claims, receipt not in applicant's name, and failure to add the person from whose possession the amount was recovered as a party to the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Udgir All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case